The Color Line and the Perceptual Gulf

UPDATE (2006-09-21 06:53EST): The latest: A Chasm Illuminated.

The latest flare-up between Culture Kitchen and Firedoglake, despite being a sad display of destructive angst, nevertheless says something real about the state of "race relations" in America today. At the very least, it demonstrates to me that the perceptual gulf between white liberals and progressive people of color is vast, profound, and at times seemingly intractable, stuck in a self-perpetuating loop of cascading errors.

Here's what I can make out, in the most generalized but hopefully clear terms (obviously, not all white liberals see things in similar terms and I certainly don't speak for all people of color with this "POC perception" device, it's just my way of explaining my view of constrasting perspectives):

Fact: The first Bill Clinton-blogger meeting was overwhelmingly attended by white bloggers.
White perception: An unfortunate coincidence.
POC perception: Hundreds of years of history and our own life experiences have taught us that racism often works its nefarious magic through seemingly benign cultural norms and all manner of fork-tongued mechanisms that lead to consistently one-sided representation and results.

Fact: This was only the first of many meetings.
White perception: Let's not make too much of this one event. There will be plenty of occasions in the future to discuss your pet issue.
POC perception: Hundreds of years of history and our own life experiences have taught us that racism often works its nefarious magic through seemingly benign cultural norms and all manner of fork-tongued mechanisms that lead to consistently one-sided representation and results.

Fact: The meeting was organized in haste.
White perception: There wasn't time to organize a politically-correct diverse gathering.
POC perception: The fact that it's difficult for hastily-organized meetings to be diverse and inclusive is symptomatic.

Fact: Oliver Willis was invited but couldn't make it.
White perception: Organizers did their best to invite black folks this time and will do better next time.
POC perception: Oliver Willis is a great blogger who deserved the invite; but come on, is a single invitation really the outer limit of effort on a matter so central to the narrative of American history?

[ UPDATE (2006-10-01 15:00EST): Okay, I admit it, I don't actually think that Oliver Willis is a "great blogger". I wrote that because I was naively still trying to be overly nice to the white liberals who might be reading this post. If you've continued reading Zuky since then, you've probably noticed that I'm done with that.]

Fact: Steve Gilliard wasn't invited but wouldn't have attended anyway.
White perception: Part of the blame lies with black folks who don't want to talk with us anyway.
POC perception: Steve Gilliard can do what he wants; but come on, is this really the outer limit of effort on a matter so central to the narrative of American history?

Fact: Kos is Latino.
White perception: See? We're not racist.
POC perception: We're pleased that Kos is Latino. But the larger issues remain.

Fact: Peter Daou if of Lebanese descent.
White perception: See? We're not racist.
POC perception: We're pleased that Daou is of Lebanese descent. But the larger issues remain.

So given all that, here's my breakdown: Liza's reactive post may have been inartful and flawed (as she humbly admitted in her own update calling herself an "asshole"), but it made a serious, legitimate point about an undeniable reality. The reaction of FDLers to Liza's post exposed an ugly vein of circle-jerk condescension, racially-loaded bile, and ratings-based self-importance that momentarily made Bill O'Reilly look semi-reasonable. I dunno, maybe everyone's been watching too much race-war Survivor. This path can't possibly advance progressive dialogue.

I'm not saying that anyone should remain silent in the face of swift-boat attacks. I'm just saying, come correct, with proper perspective and proportional angst — and an understanding of the points you claim to be addressing rather than stereotype-laden cliches. I'm saying, part of what makes us progressive is an open mind and a good heart. Lashing out with gleeful vitriol against every critic is ridiculous. Wielding the pixel-packet volume of FDL's megaphone for the sole purpose of trying to humiliate and heap derision on an African-American woman whose causes you self-righteously claim to defend is beyond ridiculous. And it's a step backward on the difficult path to the America that many of us hope to live in.

Yes, I find it unfortunate and frustrating that so many white liberals view racism as a matter of interpersonal behavior and personal virtue, rather than a societal institution in which we all participate and share responsibility. I mean, even if the racial composition of this meeting was entirely accidental — if this one data point is an aberrant exception in the historical pattern — the pattern still stands and should be consciously corrected. Nobody's asking FDL or any blog to solve the world's problems, but in order to approach one another as a progressive community in good-faith dialogue, we need to come together around the admission and the reality that we're all participants in cultural institutions that are laced with the legacies of racism — and we all need to participate in the solution.

UPDATE (2006-09-17 14:28EST): Over at The Republic of T., Terrance sums up his reaction to the furor and explores some of its implications:

Honestly, after reading the latest FDL post — and comments — aimed at Liza, I'm begining to think that some of these folks aren't people I want to sit at a table with anyway. There's nothing more offensive than being told to remember your place, as zuzu aptly puts it. And we're supposed to be on the same team? Well, I've got a lot more to think about now. If nothing else, though, I'm glad I saw that FDL post. Experience has taught me to value and pay close attention to those moments when the mask slips and people (as Oprah once put it) show you who they really are. [...]

It matters who's at the table, because identity and experience inform perspective. Just as having a significant number of women at the table probably changed the context and content of the discussion from what it would have been otherwise, so greater diversty at the table changes the discussion, by expanding the context through the wide and varied experiences of the people at the table. It can't help but do so. The less diverse the participants, the narrower the context of the discussion will be, as well as the possible solutions discussed. [...]

There's another shift or change or reality check about the blogosphere that we might as well face. Some of us have known it for a while now. Some of us deny that it's a reality at all. But like it or not, the blogosphere — even the progressive blogosphere — has gatekeepers, whether they know that's what they are or not, whether any of us likes it or not.

The entire post is worth reading.

Comments

[bellatrys]

Kai, we got a lot of this as feminist or GLBT bloggers the last couple years, too - the "we're so progressive, we stand up and chivalrously defend you, so how DARE you point out that we are not quite living up to our own principles when we make sexist jokes or homophobic insults or say that your rights are not important, wait your turn, stop complaining, do you want us to lose the next election? Get back in the kitchen, cocksucking bitchez!!1! Bring me a sammich! har, har, har"

It had a very chilling, and narrowing, effect on the discourse, particularly at Daily Kos. Cultural imperialism runs deep and wide, and a lot more people have bought into right-wing memes than will own up to it. (Denial's easy.)

[Kai]

bellatrys,

Thanks for your comment. Incidentally I visited your blog yesterday and had a good time reading.

Yes, breezy denial is far easier than grappling with deep-seated institutions that underlie our own lives and assumptions. This whole episode has been somewhat sad to observe, because I feel like the two sides are talking past each other. I think FDL has a lot of value, and not all commenters there were comfortable heaping derision on Liza. But as I commented at Culture Kitchen, it seems like many white liberals take it very personally when their mere participation in a one-sided racial equation is pointed out; it seems their self-perceived identity is at least partly defined by being profoundly different from the overt bigots of the conservative movement, so it infuriates them when the suggestion arises that anything they've done or said or inadvertently participated in contains a whiff of institutional racism. They seem to take it as an affront to their honor rather than an invitation to participate in the solution. And most unfortunately, this affront is sometimes met with an angry reversion to thought-patterns that actually do reveal a veiled but putrid psychic underbelly of racism, as with many of the vicious attacks against Liza for her uppity stupidity.

Anyway, the silver lining here is that (1) discussion of race in the blogosphere has received a healthy jolt of electricity, hopefully leading to increased consciousness and , and (2) I and presumably others discovered several more blogs that I plan on reading more in the future.

Peace.

[TripleJ63]

This is the kind of thing that alot of our white liberal friends who don't get it should read. They are seeing it in the context of just this one lunch, we are seeing it in the context of another drop in an OCEAN of drops.

The perception is that whites really don't care about our opinions or input until election time comes around. Then we get lip service pandering for a few months, get us to the polls, before they go back to forgetting us.

[Kai]

TripleJ63: Yup.

And now that FDL has deleted Republic of T. from their blogroll and Daily Kos has deleted Culture Kitchen from theirs, maybe things will get back to normal...?!

Cheers.

[ UPDATE From Kai: It turns out that The Republic of T. was not removed from FDL's blogroll because of this incident. I apologize for repeating the false rumor. ]

[ZC]

Thanks, Kai, again taking on an issue that no one wants to talk about.

There appears to be some kind of pathology in white consciousness that works something like the ostrich: “if I ignore this unpleasant issue long enough, maybe it will just go away and I won’t have to deal with it.” Despite my own very progressive upbringing, when I pay very close attention, when I bring all my mindfulness to bear upon any of my near-jerk reactions, this is what I witness going on in my mind. Unfortunately, the festering wound of race-relations is the “elephant in the living room”. We must deal with it even though we don’t want to. Why don’t we want to? Well, it will require – gasp! – searing self-honesty.

I think one of the things that fuels white progressives is the fight against conservatives who represent all that is reprehensible: *they* are the bigoted racists, the sexist pigs, the corrupt fat-cats, not us. To imply that progressives actually have some of these issues to work on implies that they are “one of them”; perhaps this is what causes such vehement reactions to arise. Evidently we progressives will have to dope out how to have enough inner strength to battle “the enemy” AND resolve these issues within ourselves.

Despite many years of conscious effort to address the deeply conditioned racist responses that are inevitable in any white upbringing, I still find racist tendencies in my own mind. It is a deep, deep issue. (On a side note, I’ve been pondering for years which one is deeper: racism or sexism? The jury is still out on that one.) The progressive movement, in order to attain any true power (the “soul-force” type of power Gandhi talked about) will have to grapple with and come to terms with these issues if it is to have any hope of not just survival, but winning. And winning takes more than just whining at the enemy.

[Kai]

Thanks, ZC, for your honest willingness to grapple with this issue. It's important for white progressives to understand that we're not saying they're evil at heart; I mean, even people of color usually admit that there are remnant wisps (or more) of white supremacy in our own psyches. And you're right, the more we deny it, the more ugly outbreaks like this incident and its fallout occur.

I wouldn't say, however, that "no one wants to talk about" this particular episode: there's still chatter going on right now in many corners of the progressive blogosphere: see threads at Feministe and Women of Color, for example. Meanwhile, the "A-list" blogs (puke! when did the blogosphere turn into the Access Hollywood Red Carpet Special?!) -- liberal blogs -- are silent. I'm making the semantic distinction between "progressive" and "liberal" because, for the sake of clarity, I refer to positions such as the one you've expressed in your comment as "progressive", while I refer to the white bloggers at the Clinton meeting who shrug and dismiss this whole hullabaloo as a "tempest in a teapot" as "liberal". Progressives (as I use the term) seek fundamental change in our society's power structures and are willing to use extra-electoral means to effect those changes; whereas liberals generally seek a marginally less offensive version of the current system and view democracy almost entirely in terms of electoral politics. Both progressives and liberals tend to get lumped together by our two-party system and the fake news media that props it up; but in a truly robust pluralistic democracy, we'd almost certainly be in different political parties (Social Democrats, Socialists, Greens, Revolutionary Workers, etc) and would form coalitions around specific issues, or to build ruling governments and opposition blocks. One of the most annoying things about two-party oligarchy is being more or less forced to share a political party with some of these bozos.

Anyway, thanks for invoking Gandhi's Doctrine of Soul-force. Ultimately, that's what it's all about.

Namaste.